Sen. Miller seeks to bust filibusters after 30-hour debate

AccessNorthGA ^ | 11/12/03

[reflecting]

If the Republican Senators truly believed in service they would keep the Senate in session throughout the holidays until the Dems finally gave up. I've already heard whining by Dems about possibly getting out late for the Thanksgiving Holiday due to the Republican filibuster. All the while our young men and serve night and day overseas through the holidays.

I would like to hear one good reason why this has not already been done? REALLY can some one tell me why Frist has not forced the Dems to a REAL filibuster? WHY? do some of you understand this?

[MamaLucci]

By the dems knowing how to pick their fights.
(BTW, the dems hardly conceded the PBA ban, since they and the ACLU had a lawsuit filed the same day.)
The left KNOWS that the courts are the whole ball of wax.
That is the hill they have chosen to fight on.
So far, they are winning.

[eyespysomething]

oops. Do I have to leave? I voted for Zell.

[reflecting]

Some of us need to get it across to the Republican leadership that we also know the bench is the whole ball of wax and they had better start acting like it is!

[Consort]

Yes, mainly because Conservatives don't believe in incrementalism...they want it all...right now...their way or no way.

[Galactic Overlord-In-Chief]

I would like to hear one good reason why this has not already been done? REALLY can some one tell me why Frist has not forced the Dems to a REAL filibuster? WHY? do some of you understand this?

A real filibuster involves a senator taking the floor and talking on length, refusing to yield the floor to anyone else or to conduct further business. The Democrats really don't have to do this, because any time a Republican calls for the yeas or nays (taking a vote) a Democrat can simply object and stop the vote there. To end debate they would take a cloture vote, which the Dems have about 44 or 45 to vote against cloture and keep debate going. By a simple objection and voting against cloture, that's all the Democrats have to do. You would only use the filibuster when there are the votes to invoke cloture and you want to stop the Senate completely so no cloture vote can take place.

[The UnVeiled Lady]

The Constitution makes it clear that the "Advise and Consent" clause requires only a majority of the Senators present is sufficient to approve a judicial (or other) presidential appointment.

Then why can't the Republicans have most in chambers and then just voice vote? I have hear the Dems do that and not sure if a quorum was even there.

What is good for the goose, good for gander

[Aeronaut]

Actually I believe a senate rule can be changed with a simple majority and that is their plan.

You are right, but the Rats can filibuster the rule change, thus requiring 3/5ths again.

[WilDave]

If action is being held up in the Senate with an unconstitutional action (filibuster), why doesn't someone sue to let the courts determine its constitutionality? I understand that we need to be concerned with letting the activist courts do that, but is it a reasonable pursuit?
Advise and Consent should not be subject to this filibuster action of the Demon-rats.

[reflecting]

OK if I understand you - then why don't the Repubs. just refrain from asking for a vote? Would that not mean that the Dems would have to talk forever?

[Sprite518]

I bet if Frist would say the Senate will not recess until we take a vote on all the Judges, then a vote would take place. I do not understand how a pre determined 30 hours of debate will be effective. No one will remember it a month from now. I guess the Republican are more concerned about angering some Socialist than doing what is best for this Country.

[Reagan Man]

>>>Yes, mainly because Conservatives don't believe in incrementalism...they want it all...right now...their way or no way.

Pure baloney. Need I remind you, this is a conservative website.

Both Reagan and Bush43 have pushed an incremental conservative agenda. Besides, appointment of moderate jurists to the USSC, will only get you more of the same. More O'Conner's and more Kennedy's. The object is for conservatism to triumph over liberalism. What is needed is more Scalia's, Thomases and Rehnquist's

[Congressman Billybob]

Very, very seldom do the courts ever take action with respect to the operating Rules of either the House or the Senate. The reason for that reticence is clear -- separation of powers.

Most likely, the issue of the Senate violating the Advise and Consent Clause would be pitched out of court on its ear. Furthermore, the kind of judicial thinking that would lead any federal judge to get involved in this issue is EXACTLY the kind of judge and thinking that constitutionalists have no use for.

Those are two excellent reasons why this issue should never see the inside of a courtroom. The third reason is that the nuclear option will solve the issue with only a majority vote in the Senate.

John / Billybob

[HapaxLegamenon]

Rule changes require a 2/3rds vote

NO!, Rule changes only require a simple majority. The problem is with only a 1 seat majority, there are enough RINOs that are against the rule change to kill the measure.

[Consort]

Pure baloney.

Nope.

Need I remind you, this is a conservative website.

Nope. What I said applies to countless postings here and you know as well as I do that it is accurate.

[itsahoot]

Think of a small Democrap majority in the Senate ramming through a bunch of Commie judges.

Been there Done that. already. Of course they had a lot of help from hoodwinked republican presidents. david Sooter comes to mind.

[Guillermo]

Actually, it's not.

There was never a bill brought to the floor in regards to "Hillary Care."

The rule change would outlaw filibusters on JUDGES, which is (Judicial nominee filibusters) nearly unprecedented.

Get your facts straight.

[Guillermo]

Don't let his "facts" get in the way of the truth.

"Hillary Care" never even made it out of committee, much less onto the Senate floor.

[Guillermo]

The Bill never made it to the floor, it didn't even make it out of Committee.

[billbears]

From everything I've seen, a southern Democrat is further to the right than a northeast Republican.

What several Southern Conservatives have been saying for awhile. Of course nobody listens to us, we 'need' Republicans shipped in that the RNC wants for Senate. We're not allowed to vote on people that actually live in this state. Oh no, they have somebody 'better' for us. And now that the Republicans actually hold the Senate, this is what we get....